Chennai
Justice M V Muralidharan, while dealing with a plea from CSI Diocese of Vellore seeking to vacate the interim injunction, said, “This court has clarified that the order passed on May 25 is an order of interim injunction restraining the college authorities from proceeding in any manner with regards to appointing a principal.”
The case has been posted for final orders on June 1, 2016. The petitioner Balwin Nambikkairaj, Head, Department of Zoology, Voorhes College, had contended that he was an elected member of the Executive Committee of the CSI Diocese of Vellore and stated that the principal’s appointment has been done in total contravention of the by-laws of CSI Diocese of Vellore.
He had submitted that as per the by-laws, the Board for Collegiate Education needs to be convened to finalise the members of the Panel Committee, to recommend a panel of names for appointment to the post of principal.
But instead of complying with the Provisions of the Constitution and by-laws, the Diocesan Executive Committee chose to simply close the issue by observing that as the Board for Collegiate Education was yet to be constituted and since the Governing Board of the College is actually administrating the College, two Principals from outside and the Honorary Secretary would serve as Panel Committee to do the work as per the Regulations and the same was accepted with a dissent from a few Members of the Executive Committee. He insisted that the appointment should be made as per the by-laws that govern the whole process.
RDO’s order to seal Ranipet poultry set aside
Failure of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranipet, in mentioning the distance between poultry farms and residences has resulted in the Madras High Court setting aside his lock-andseal order of the poultry farms.
Justice M Venugopal, in his order, stated: “This court is restrained to interfere with the lock and seal order since there appears to be a lapse on the part of the RDO in not mentioning the distance in metres. Obviously, the said omission has resulted in serious of miscarriage of justice to the said poultry farm owners.”
As per the case, Settu and Elumalai had formed two poultry farms at Melathangal village. It was alleged that foul smell emanated from the farms affected the environment and caused severe hardships to those residing in the area. Based on this, action was initiated as per Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), resulting in the entrances to the poultry farms being sealed.
However, aggrieved Seth and Elumalai approached the Madras High Court arguing that the closure order had not specifically mentioned anything about the public nuisance or danger to health. Also, contending that the RDO had failed to provide a copy of the public complaint, they submitted that the RDO’s order had not specified the exact distance between the residences of the public and the poultry.
Justice Venugopal, while pointing out that even if danger or inconvenience about to be caused to an individual over a public right would be sufficient to invoke Section 133 of CrPC, said the non-mentioning of the distance or conspicuously omitting the same, makes the order invalid. The judge directed the RDO to pass a fresh order in a dispassionate manner and that too in a qualitative and quantitative fashion and a speaking one by outlining the process of reasoning.
Visit news.dtnext.in to explore our interactive epaper!
Download the DT Next app for more exciting features!
Click here for iOS
Click here for Android